BREAKING: The anthropology of public discourse!


The way our minds tend to work:
Just how "rational" are we humans? How do our minds seem to work?

It's all part of the anthropology of the modern public discourse! Two basic questions are involved:

What sorts of topics do we choose to talk about? And when we talk about those topics, what kind of sense do we make?

Answers! In the journalistic realm, we often talk about topics which are inane—about pork rinds, earth tones, broccoli, personal notes and such. Then too, when we talk about serious topics, our efforts are often quite feeble.

On balance, just how "rational" are we? We'll look at three current examples.

Colbert King on the state of the schools:

Is his weekly column in today's Washington Post, Colbert King discusses a serious topic—the state of the D. C. Public Schools. But when he discusses Lewis Ferebee, the mayor's nominee to be the new chancellor, he very weirdly says this:
KING (12/8/18): Which gets us back to Ferebee and the challenges he faces should he get the post. He would be the city’s sixth permanent school leader since 2000, The Post reported. There’s a reason for the turnover. The job’s a killer. Not only must the chancellor tackle the daunting problem of the wide achievement gap between students from affluent households and low-income families (a problem that remains unsolved in the Indianapolis public school system that Ferebee led for the past five years), he also will encounter a governance structure so indirect and complicated that it only could have been designed by a Rube Goldberg devotee.
According to King, "the daunting problem of the wide achievement gap" between affluent kids and low-income kids "remains unsolved in the Indianapolis public school system that Ferebee led for the past five years."

That's a very strange thing to say. It's also typical of the way our upper-end journalists have talked about low-income schools for at least the past fifty years.

King seems to suggest that Ferebee should have solved that daunting problem during his five years in Indy. In fact, that daunting problem has "remained unsolved" all over the United States for as long as anyone has bothered to track such matters.

That daunting achievement gap has been a deeply intractable problem. Despite this blindingly obvious fact, cosseted journalistic elites love to pretend that the problem exists because people like Ferebee have weirdly failed to wave their magic wands at it.

(This was the full platform of former chancellor Rhee. By her reckoning, she would stamp her feet and yell at the teachers about this problem and they would magically fix it.)

Remarks of this type make no earthly sense. They betray a deeply detached insouciance which dates to the court of Marie Antoinette.

Despite this fairly obvious fact, uncaring journalistic elites love to offer such "analyses." This low-IQ posturing has dominated upper-end journalism for the pats fifty years.

Quinta Jurecic spots the collusion:

Quinta Jurecic is managing editor of Lawfare, the high-profile legal affairs blog of the Brookings Institution. As such, she writes from the top of the legal pile within Insider Washington.

Last Sunday, Jurecic offered a puzzling analysis piece in the New York Times Sunday Review. Could her reasoning have been any fuzzier? All the way down, we'd say no.

Alas! A stampede is currently under way, and when we humans stage a stampede, we tend to abandon our intellectual standards, such as they were to begin with. Jurecic is looking for guilt in the warrens of Trump, and so, she reasons like this:
JURECIC (12/2/18): From the day the Mueller investigation began, opponents of the president have hungered for that report, or an indictment waiting just around the corner, as the source text for an incantation to whisk Mr. Trump out of office and set everything back to normal again. The evidence that the special counsel has so far made public is damning enough. Yet even as the investigation seems to gather momentum, it has become increasingly clear that whatever findings Mr. Mueller reaches will be only a small piece of a much larger political puzzle.

The special counsel's office has already produced a hefty pile of evidence. The indictments of a Russian ''troll farm'' called the Internet Research Agency and of Russian military intelligence officers involved in the hacking of Democratic Party emails told a detailed story of a Russian effort to stir up American political passions. The documents revealed by Mr. Corsi suggest that he and Mr. Stone—who was in regular contact with Mr. Trump at the time—might have known in advance of planned releases by WikiLeaks of hacked documents.

Not enough collusion for you? Consider Mr. Cohen's latest plea agreement...
To what extent is intellectual rigor thrown away when public stampedes occur? Consider what Jurecic says there:

Jurecic says that some documents suggest that Corsi and Stone might have known in advance of planned releases by WikiLeaks of hacked documents. At this point, she blows right past the words "suggest" and "might" to say this constitutes "collusion."

By the way, collusion in what? Jurecic doesn't say.

Without forgetting "suggests" and "might," let us ask a question. Would there be anything legally wrong with foreknowledge of the type which might have occurred? Jurecic doesn't address that point.

Instead, she acts like this state of affairs, which might obtain, would constitute major collusion. It seems to us that she reasons in similar slipshod ways all the way through her piece.

This comes from the top of our legal elite. But so we humans tend to behave when one of our stampedes is on.

Brian snarks again:

Last evening, Brian Williams gave us liberal viewers something we very much like. He aimed some pleasing snark at The Others—in particular, at one such man.

Brian had his snark pants on. He spoke with legal analyst Joyce Vance:
WILLIAMS (12/7/18): Hey, Joyce, on all of this, the sum total of all of this, I'm not trying to get you in a tussle with a Harvard law professor whose back may be sore after the water weight from carrying the water for this president, it`s been observed of late. But here now we`ll talk about on the other side Alan Dershowitz on his view of the sum total of today.

DERSHOWITZ (videotape): Well, I think we`re seeing a coming attraction to what the report will be. And I think the report will set out a circumstantial case based on all the lying that's taking place. A circumstantial case for arguably political sins. But I don't see any crimes.

WILLIAMS: Joyce, he doesn't see any crimes. Do you?
So cool and so utterly pleasing! Instead of debating this Harvard professor in person, Brian decided to open a big can of snark and shoot it all over the place.

Helping things along, he edited down what the offensive Trump-lover had said.

For what it's worth, we watched Dershowitz's entire segment with Tucker Carlson last night. All in all, we thought the professor's varied remarks made fairly decent sense.

By the way, has Dershowitz been "carrying water" for Trunp? As part of that varied presentation, Fox viewers were actually allowed to hear this:
CARLSON (12/7/18): We may be losing perspective of this. I just want to remind our viewers on our way out that you are not a figure on the right, you were not a Trump voter, you're merely defending what you think is our tradition of law. And, and I appreciate that.

DERSHOWITZ: And I've been saying the same thing for 55 years. I—

CARLSON: Yes. I've noticed.

DERSHOWITZ: I've been saying the same thing for 55 years. I've expressed the same criticism of prosecutors whether they go after Democrats or Republicans.

Elsewhere, Dershowitz has routinely said that he didn't vote for Candidate Trump; that he donated money to Candidate Clinton; and that he approves of virtually none of President Trump's policies or behaviors.

Dershowitz doesn't have many good things to say about Donald J. Trump. But when we humans stage a stampede, we like our demons undiluted, the flavor Brian served.

Just for the record, back in 1999 and 2000, Brian kept playing these reindeer games against the psychiatrically shaky Candidate Gore, who was said to be wearing too many polo shirts out on the trail. This was said to be a fiendish play for female voters and a sign of a disordered mind.

That's what Brian's owner wanted back then (GE CEO Jack Welch). Last night's snark was what the new owners want from Brian now.

By the way, this is the way Vance responded to Brian:
WILLIAMS: Joyce, he doesn't see any crimes. Do you?

VANCE: You know, I disagree with him very strongly. I think that there are all sorts of crimes here, including a crime that lands at the president's doorstep.

And this issue of well, there's only circumstantial evidence is absolutely silly, because prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence all the time...Prosecutors use circumstantial evidence all the time. You don`t have to have a smoking gun in every case.

Here, where you've got witness after witness lining up, and where you've now got evidence that there wasn't just suddenly a Trump Tower meeting out of the blue with Russians in 2016 but rather a course of conduct between folks in the Trump campaign and the Russian government, or at least government-linked, that spanned years, it's not so much smoke and mirrors. It's looking like hard evidence.
"It's looking like hard evidence," Vance said. But hard evidence of what crime? For whatever reason, Vance didn't say, and Brian didn't bother to ask.

This is the kind of cable product you're served after a stampede starts. The low-IQ conduct is so common that viewers will rarely notice.

For ourselves, we'd love to see Brian interview Dershowitz and Vance at the same time. Instead, you were given a barrel of snark last night, just like the snark this big baboon aimed at the wardrobe of Candidate Gore so many times in the past.

Children are dead all over Iraq. In his service to CEO Welch, Brian worked hard toward that end.

That said, it's all anthropology now. What kind of animals are we really? What sorts of things do we do?


  1. King’s op-Ed deals with the problems facing the DC schools, such as teachers and administrators cooking the books, the high dropout rate, and the difficulties the potential new chancellor will face. Yes, a serious topic, handled in a serious way, if anyone cares to read King’s piece.

    But of course, the only thing Somerby wants to mention is what he characterizes as a swipe at Ferebee. But is it really? The online version, under the words “remains unsolved”, links to an op-Ed in the Indianapolis Star that is an interesting look at the school situation in Indianapolis.


    So, here we have *two* articles, dealing in a serious way with schools, including the problem of achievement gaps, and all Somerby can do is try to harvest bad faith from one of them in order to do his usual media-bashing.

    Opportunity missed here to actually discuss a rather substantive school piece. Typical dismal Somerby work. The only effort he took was in trying to find snark in a column where it didn’t exist.

    It’s looking like Somerby is the unserious one here.

  2. Somerby complains about unfairness while committing some himself, with his swipe at Marie Antoinette. He says educational inequalities date back to Marie Antoinette, but were the poor even educated then? Not so much. Marie Antoinette however took in a poor youth and had him educated after he was gored by a stag during a hunt. The Smithsonian describes her as much more sympathetic toward the poor and helpful to them than her public image, created by pamphleteers for political purposes. Is that fair to her? Shouldn't Somerby make the same effort to get it right about her that he expects from DC journalists talking about education in Indianapolis?

    Somerby has talked about the historical reasons for gaps between black and white students, attributing them to our troubled racial history. Isn't there a similar troubled past with respect to education of the rich vs poor in both Europe and the US? Not only has literacy been suppressed among the poor, but all forms of education beyond apprenticeship in a trade were considered unnecessary and even dangerous, for boys and especially girls. How many generations are needed to offset that systematic suppression? Somerby doesn't say and while his point about the intransigence of the gaps is correct, the additional problems with the Indianapolis schools are important too.

    Educational gaps between rich and poor have existed as long as education itself. Marie Antoinette did nothing to widen them and herself tried to close them, at least for individual children. And she never said "let them eat cake" but is a convenient reference, even if she is scapegoated today as much as in the past. But Somerby doesn't care how women are portrayed. He joins in the calumny with enthusiasm because who cares about women's history? Not part of education, apparently, to someone like Somerby.

    1. Forgot to include the link:

    2. God, you misread almost everything. It's comical. You are writing satire right? It's funny.

    3. Somerby: "Remarks of this type make no earthly sense. They betray a deeply detached insouciance which dates to the court of Marie Antoinette."

    4. Was the court of Marie Antoinette deeply detached and insouciant?

      Although the quote you cite is referenced her court (one of you many misreadings), the article your sourced said she was renownedly extravagant, she was unable to comprehend the French people's thirst for democracy, a supporter of absolute royal power, an enemy of democratic ideals and oblivious to her subjects' plight. N'est ce pas insouciant?

      (You misread the part about the stag too - as you will see if you read it again.)

      You're funny.

    5. Was the court of Marie Antoinette deeply detached and insouciant?

      Although the quote you cite referenced her court (one of your many misreadings), the article you sourced said she was renownedly extravagant, she was unable to comprehend the French people's thirst for democracy, a supporter of absolute royal power, an enemy of democratic ideals and oblivious to her subjects' plight. N'est ce pas insouciant?

      (You misread the part about the stag too - as you will see if you read it again.)

      You're funny.

    6. You forgot to call her a cunt.

    7. No, she seemed cool. She had good intentions ... with the milk barn and the help you describe. She felt for the people but didn't follow through. Maybe she couldn't. She was caught in a runaway court that couldn't stop. The divide was too vast between the rich and the poor, the Sun King was so successful, it created a momentum and hubris that kept them going far too long and they simply crashed into a wall of modernity and change, especially where war and government were concerned.

      You're the cunt, you dumb whore. You can't even fucking read.

    8. Hubris kept the monarchy in place? In what universe? They claimed God's will, divine right. French kings were anointed by the Catholic church, their coronations were religious ceremonies. And the church had a lot more power in those days. But you go ahead and pretend you understand history.

      Marie Antoinette became queen in 1774 but the French Revolution began in 1730. How could the hubris of someone who wasn't even king have been the cause of an event that started before he was born?

      You are confusing the Sun King (Louis XIV) with Louis XVI who was killed in the Revolution. Marie Antoinette was not married to the Sun King. All Kings were rich and excessive in their behavior. The Sun King died in 1715, before the start of the French Revolution which dates from 1730. You are correct that poverty existed before the revolution, but it also existed after the revolution too. So what exactly was the modernity and change about? Maybe the Revolution was more complex than you think. Why did the activists of the Revolution turn on each other? How accurate is Dickens description of the Revolution in A Tale of Two Cities? Or is that propagandistic?

      Maybe it is hubris that makes you call other people cunts and whores. Have you thought about why you use terms related to women as generic insults, and what that might say about your ambivalence toward women? But I can't read?

    9. @1:26 Writing is harder than it looks, isn't it? And here you illustrate what my mother always told me, that profanity is the sign of a limited vocabulary and poor imagination.

      I know someone has told you that it was the glitter of Versailles and the insouciance of Marie Antoinette that brought about the revolution, but how can that be when the revolution started before either of them existed? Cause must precede effect. I think Godel proved that. Actually, I think Somerby is the dumbest whore on earth.

    10. What is your basis for saying the revolution started in 1730? What were the causes of the French Revolution that started in 1730?

    11. Versailles was built in 1631. Louis XIVths version was finished in 1722. The French Revolution started before this?

      " I think Somerby is the dumbest whore on earth." Yes, we all know. It clouds your thinking. Bon dimanche!

    12. Sorry -- meant to type 1830, which clears up the confusion.

      The French Revolution was caused by the increased taxes needed to service debts incurred helping the US with the American Revolution, not Marie Antoinette's jewelry. It was a tax revolt. Revolts in 1830 and 1858 were about peasants, poverty and lack of bread.

      People today don't realize that there were frequent localized famines throughout Europe before the modern era (1500) because of failure of crops and lack of wider distribution of food. In the 1500s, travel and communication made possible importing and exporting of food to even out the food supply and that reduced hunger due to food shortages. That was a big deal. In the time we are talking about 1700s, there were a series of local territorial wars throughout Europe that were paid for by taxes levied on peasants.

      See Wikipedia.

    13. But you said the French revolution started before Marie Antoinette existed. What did you mean by that? The 1830 French revolution was the second French revolution. the French revolution of 1789 was caused by the increase of taxes and the debts of the detached and insouciant King who's outdated, monarchical extravagancies drove the country into debt. That's why they cut all their heads off. It was the successs of the Sun King that created and entrenched those extravagancies and detachment which led to the near bankruptcy and famine of late 18th century France. You're boring.

    14. The most underreported and most devastating event of modern European history was the 1783 volcanic eruption in Iceland, which killed two-thirds of Iceland's cattle, one third of its people, and caused bad harvests throughout Europe for the rest of the decade. That, not the misdeeds of any aristocracy, is why France faced real famine at the close of 1788, followed by the catastrophic social displacement known as "La Grande Peur." The coming revolution was thus, as Jacques Le Fataliste would have said, "écrit la-haut."

  3. “All in all, we thought the professor's varied remarks made fairly decent sense. “

    Oh? Which of his remarks made sense? The only ones Somerby highlights are that Dershowitz claimed he voted for Hillary, doesn’t much like Trump’s policies, and that he just generally hates prosecutors, whether they go after “Democrats or Republicans.” To which Carlson says “Amen.” What, were they at a prayer meeting?

    None of the things Somerby quotes or paraphrases have any bearing on the substance of Dershowitz’s arguments.

    Is it possible that Carlson and Dershowitz, like the hack Rachel Maddow, are stuffing money down their pants, which leads them to be, shall we say, disingenuous? Heaven forfend!

    But I would like to know how Dershowitz’s voting record is supposed to make him more credible when he makes his claims.

    Also, Williams’ snark aside, did Joyce Vance, former US attorney, make any decent sense when she rebutted Dershowitz?


      “Epstein had no shortage of powerful friends, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, and Alan Dershowitz — all of whom, at various points, frequented planes and properties that Epstein allegedly used for sexually abusing girls, sometimes with other men.”

      And why is it we find Bob frequently supporting people (Roy Moore) who seem to have some connection to sex with children?

    2. Frequently? Please cite the number of times TDH has supported child molesters. He has never "supported" Moore, so don't try to count him.

    3. Supported might be the wrong word. He has defended Moore by trying to excuse his actions as somehow normal when they were not. For example, Somerby said that the fact that the girls mommas were happy about them "dating" Moore makes everything OK, as if parents could give permission for child molestation. (They would go to jail along with the molester, if they did that.) It does obliquely "support" Moore when you argue that there is nothing wrong with stalking young women, when you are over 30 and an Assistant D.A. and they are in high school. You can go back and count how many times he posted about Moore. It was numerous.

    4. "Somerby said that the fact that the girls mommas were happy about them "dating" Moore makes everything OK." Actually, he never said that. You're putting words in his mouth.

    5. Actually, I'm not.

    6. "Supported" might be the wrong word? Let's consider this wording: you lied when claimed that TDH supported Moore. In fact, TDH didn't "support" Moore. He exclusively wrote about the failure of the media to report accurately about the accusations leveled at Moore. I know you won't check, so I've looked at all of TDH's blog entries from November 2017, when the story was widely discussed. I'll post summaries of the entries about Moore in another comment. Not a supporting column in sight on site.

      The term liar applies to you only if you have the moral capacity to understand your responsibility to check your accusations against someone with the facts and only if you have the intellectual capability to understand when you're wrong. If you're a moral and intellectual idiot, like DAinCA, then you're off the hook.

      So which is it? Are you lying or not? If the former, you should at the least knock it off. If the latter, you may join DAinCA in my public service announcements. Your choice.

    7. Here are summaries of the TDH blog entries from November 2017 about Moore. See if you can find "support" for Moore. Feel free to check the accuracy of my summaries for yourself or to extend the search past 11/2017:

      11/11/17 WaPo reports about four women who had contact with Roy Moore (a.k.a. the Gadsden Mall Creeper) when they were in their teens. One reported sexual abuse when she was 14. The others were between 16 and 18, and all said nothing happened beyond kissing and hugging. Maddow characterization of the WaPo piece is that the four women”made aggressive sexual advances to them.” That’s not true.

      11/13/17 Ruth Marcus of WaPo takes Republican women Senators to task for saying that the charges against GMC are troubling if true. Marcus assumes the charges are proven and lumps the four women together as describing similar histories with GMC. TDH notes that he finds credible the one woman (not four women) who reports sexual abuse, but notes how hard this is to prove after so many years have passed.

      11/13/17 NY Mag reports that Gloria Allred will present another accuse of GMC, make five women who have accused him of sexual assault. That’s not true: Allred’s accuser would make two, not five.

      11/14/17 Lawrence O’Donnell assembles a panel of talking heads to natter about Moore. Two of them say that Moore’s claim that he doesn’t remember abusing a 14-year old girl isn’t quite a ringing denial of such behavior. But Moore never said that he doesn’t remember. He categorically denied even knowing her.

      11/15/17 WaPo claims they checked 30 sources for their report on GMC. By the time it reaches CNN, it’s 30 corroborating sources, which even WaPo hadn’t claimed.

      11/16/17 By now, two women have reported sexual assault by GMC, one when she was 14; the other when she was 19. Maddow says five women have reported similar violence. This is untrue.

      11/16/17 CNN reports that the 30 sources for the WaPo report verified GMC’s accuser’s accounts. But that’s wrong.

      11/17/17 Maddow asks a WaPo reporter whether he had “discovered any evidence that Roy Moore ever dated someone age-appropriate.” TDH asks why that should define the controversy. Shouldn’t it be the two accusations of sexual assault?

      11/30/17 TDH characterizes the WaPo report on GMC this way: Central accusation: Moore assaulted a 14-year old girl. Supporting accusation: Moore dated a 19-year old and kissed her several times. TDH asks whether the second accusation actually supports the first.

    8. Sorry but nearly everybody was able to pick up on Bob's effort to dismiss Moore's creepy behavior, even describing his own interest in someone much younger than himself. There are a few people who will not understand how this behavior is disturbing, god bless them.

    9. Deadrat leaves out the accusations of mall stalking corroborating by security staff at the mall and other girls who worked there. He leaves out the stories about Moore's colleagues verifying that he "dated" much younger women, and their feeling that this was creepy at the time. He leaves out the fact that Moore was attracted to the woman who later became his wife while she was still a young teenager. He leaves out that Moore stalked a girl to her high school and paged her over an intercom to come to the office where he asked her out. This was verified by school employees at the time. Somerby wrote that the approval of the mothers of the 19 year olds made their dating a much older man OK, because customs are different in the south and Moore was a good catch. Not in deadrat's list, for some reason. In fact, deadrat only listed accusations concerning Maddow, not TDH's comments about Moore's behavior itself, which tended to exonerate him, if the facts were as reported. Deadrat pretends that TDH is only nitpicking about facts of which accusations were reported as sexual assault and which were stories in the press. As if such on-the-record comments were irrelevant. And he throws around the word liar with respect to commenters here (conflating several different people). Can there be a group lie, does that require a group mind?

      Why did TDH work overtime to accuse Moore of being railroaded? Why did he defend Roseanne Barr? Why does he routinely defend Trump by weaving the Republican talking point of the day into his own columns? Deadrat can only defend this stuff by narrowing his focus to the most minute point -- here, whether Moore was accused of sexual assault or not, officially, and whether behavior with 19 year olds is as heinous as assaulting a 14 year old (who did accuse Moore), a comparison no one was making except TDH. And deadrat ignores the whole pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia debate, which was the mainstay of TDH's objection to the press coverage. He argued that Moore's behavior wasn't creepy because the women eventually got older. Yuck!

      Does that second accusation support the first? You bet it does, to everyone except Somerby. Deadrat pretends to count columns, while conveniently leaving out the ones that were the focus of this recent discussion here -- the ones where the mommas said it was OK so Somerby excused Moore, the ones where the 19 year olds were involved with a 35 year old Asst DA. When this happens in real life, it is called cradle robbing, not true romance and guys tend to disparage other guys who do it. Except TDH apparently.

    10. "Why did TDH work overtime to accuse Moore of being railroaded?"

      Perhaps he loathes dembots, dembot? Just like every normal person on this planet, y'know.

    11. Bob, Mao, David in Cal, deadrat, etc., and there are many others outside the TDH universe - Sam Harris, Jordan Petersen, Tucker Carlson, Chuck Todd, etc., while politically at odds on occasion are yet of the same ilk, it is only about scoring points for these lonely people.

    12. Do you feel like you just scored, lonely smartass?

    13. I’m going to give you one more chance, and then I’m afraid you go into the PSA file. I promise that I’m typing as slowly as I can in the hope that you’ll be able to follow.

      I have asked you defend your falsehood that TDH supported Moore. Either you’re incapable of understanding this, in which case you’re an idiot like DAinCA, or you understand my request and refuse to confront your failing, in which case you’re a liar. There’s no third way.

      Back in ’17, this was a blog about journalistic malpractice, and I’ve provided the evidence that TDH criticized the media handling of the Moore story and did not, as you claimed, support Moore. You insist that I’ve left out accusations of Moore’s creepy behavior, but none of that is relevant unless TDH defended it. If he did, put up the evidence (that means quotes or links) or retract your claim.

      It is not my task to defend Moore.

      It is your burden to show that TDH defended Moore. I didn’t include “TDH’s comments about Moore’s behavior itself, which tended to exonerate him” because there aren’t such comments, and your failure to quote any is telling.

      TDH never “accused” — odd choice of that word — Moore of being “railroaded,” and you can’t quote him saying so.

      Roseanne Barr has nothing to do with your claims about TDH and Moore.

      Republican talking points “of the day” have nothing to do with your claims about TDH and Moore.

      I don’t know what it means to say that pedophilia was the “mainstay of TDH’s objection to the press coverage,” but as I’ve shown, TDH’s objection was to the inaccuracy of the coverage.

      As a matter of principle, TDH thinks it’s a bad idea to conduct political vendettas based on the private, legal, and consensual activities of politicians. YMMV, but who the fuck are you now, the chair of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice? When Moore was 35, he dated a 19-year old, whom he hugged and kissed. We’re talking about an adult fully capable of giving assent. She was comfortable with the relationship; her mother was comfortable with the relationship. But you say “Yuck!”

      So how did you and the high horse you rode in on get standing to conclude that his wasn’t “true romance”? Are you fuckin’ kidding me with this?

      Would you have voted to impeach William O Douglas, the former Supreme Court Justice?

      The law allows testimony about prior bad acts if and only if the latter provide evidence of pattern and practice that includes the current charge. In Moore’s case, a 14-year old girl accused Moore of committing violent and unwanted sexual acts that fell under the Alabama statute on sexual crimes. The second “accusation” is that Moore dated a 19-year old woman, whom he hugged and kissed. These non-violent acts wouldn’t have met the definitions of sexual assault under Alabama law even if the woman hadn’t welcomed them, which she did. So the behaviors in the two cases have nothing in common.

      So how do you get to the second accusation supporting the first? Are you an idiot?

      Because if you are, then you don’t have the capacity to separate truth from fiction or fact from opinion, and I’ll then withdraw my accusation of lying.

      If I’ve conflated several Anonymi, too bad. If you don’t have the common courtesy to use a nym, then the confusion is your doing. And, no, providing a nym unique to this site won’t let anyone know your real identity.

    14. Your defenses are always to narrowly define so as to exclude and then ignore what is outside your definition. That's why no relevant excerpts appear in your comment above. I don't have time to play this game with you. For example, you have omitted the underage girl who said he attempted to rape her after offering to drive her home. Why?

      Men who prefer 14 year olds but date 19 year olds to stay legal are still pedophiles. I despise them because they hurt children. I shouldn't have to explain that. Somerby worked with kids. He should know better too.

    15. If my definitions are unfair, then I’m open to correction.

      By “support,” I mean approve. Don’t you?

      At one point in this sorry tale, there were two women accusing the Gadsden Mall Creeper of sexual assault, one when she was 14 years old; the other when she was 19. When Maddow reports that not two, but five women had accused GMC of violence, TDH objects. I don’t think that TDH thereby supports GMC. Do you? I think TDH is rightly criticizing Maddow for an error in reporting. Don’t you?

      I omitted the case of the underage girl who reported that GMC attempted to rape her because I can’t find anywhere that TDH supports attempted rape. Can you?

      Let’s be precise about definitions. A pedophile is someone whose dominant sexual attraction is to prepubescent children. Clinicians call this a disorder — the technical term is paraphilia — because we expect sexual attraction to require physical sexual characteristics. A child molestor (or abuser) is someone who has sex with a minor. For federal law, that’s anyone under 18. Because of so-called Romeo and Juliet provisions, state laws can be more complicated.

      These things should be clear:

      1. Pedophiles who don’t act on their sexual attractions to children don’t hurt children sexually.
      2. People who prefer sexually-developed minors are not pedophiles, even if they act on their preferences. If they do, then they’re abusers.
      3. People who have consensual sex with 19-year olds are not thereby abusers, no matter what their sexual preferences.

      You (or one of your blue-nosed ilk) brought up Moore’s current marriage. He apparently first saw his future wife when she was in her mid-teens and liked what he saw. They met when she was 23, and he was 38. They married a year later, raised four children, and are still married after more than thirty years.

      Do you have a problem with this? If so, what damned business is it of yours?

    16. Sorry but one of Bob's objection was to people getting upset about older men preying on younger girls. He went on and on about it, including his own story of being interested in a much younger girl. This convention may not upset some, god bless them. On at least one occasion Bob has foregone genuine media criticism and instead used the guise of his raison d'etre to bludgeon "liberals".

      Taste - It's happened before, it'll happen again

    17. Now we’re getting somewhere because we finally have something specific. You don’t quote or link to anything, but I can do that for you. It’s the TDH blog entry for November 11, 2017. The adverse reactions that TDH talks about are not to men’s predatory habits with regard to young girls. Both predation and young girls are entirely your own invention. Here’s what TDH actually says:

      We may be ignoring an observable fact of life. For better or worse, for good or for ill, older men tend to be somewhat inclined to catch a little bit of those somewhat younger women.

      The word catch here echoes the lyrics of Paul Simon’s That Was Your Mother in which the singer wants to “Catch a little bit of those Cajun girls dancin' the Zydeco.” So catch as in pick up or hook up with. TDH even says ‘Personally, we'd rather see Simon stay way from the word "girls”’ to make it clear that he means older men getting together with younger women.

      Bob does go on and on. That’s part of his, er, charm. But his own story did not include his interest in a much younger girl. Again, that is your own invention. He was fascinated with someone whom he took to a birthday lunch the day she turned 20. He was 39.

      And far from dismissing this conduct, TDH says

      There's nothing automatically "wrong" with this conduct, until such time as there is, although the impulse is problematic all around the world.

      Presumably “such time” includes the old and jaded taking advantage of youth and naïveté or the old and powerful using that power against the young and powerless. Notice that the impulse is “problematic,” which is different from automatically wrong behavior like statutory rape.

      You have misrepresented TDH. If you really don’t understand that, then I should probably just stop hectoring you.

      At age 18, our society recognizes the agency of young people, and that includes their ability to consent to having sex, even with partners many years their senior. This convention may upset some, who are free to lobby the legislature to raise the age of majority to 30 or higher.

      What they’re not free to do is misrepresent those who disagree with them.

    18. Sorry but Bob did go on and on over multiple blog entries in his attempts to normalize older men preying on younger girls, including his own story about his interest in a younger girl. There are a few people who will not understand how this behavior is disturbing, god bless them. Bob, and others like him, on occasion will qualify everything they say so as to cover their tuches when discussing sensitive subjects such as youthfulness.

      Curb Your Enthusiasm - Having Said That

    19. Don’t apologize to me. You owe your apology to Somerby for misrepresenting him. But I see now why you never quote him: what he writes never matches what you claim. You have to insist that although Somerby never mentions preying on girls, you know that’s what he means.

      You’re disgusted by the sexual interest of older men for younger women, so you seek to impose your own revulsion on everyone else, including younger women who are fine with relationships with older men. Like Roy Moore’s wife over thirty years ago.

      You’re in good company — for instance racists horrified by miscegenation whose laws against inter-racial marriage were still in force in 1970 and homophobes repelled by homosexual sex who fought their losing battle against marriage equality.
      Do you find their behavior disturbing? Here’s a hint: when the devil offer you a light, consider giving up smoking.

      I don’t think you’re capable of understanding either your ethical failure in misrepresenting another or your intellectual failure in grasping the issue.

      Into the PSA box you go with DAinCA. You deserve each other.

  4. "Children are dead all over Iraq. In his service to CEO Welch, Brian worked hard toward that end."

    Somerby is squeamish about calling Trump a liar because he doesn't know whether Trump's intention was to deceive. But here he attributes the intention to kill children to Brian Williams. No hesitation about that. This seems politically convenient -- insisting on demonstration of intent with respect to Trump's lies but imputing intent to journalists with wanton abandon. Shabby, Somerby, very shabby!

    1. TDH attributes endeavor to Williams in working to get GWB (formerly the WPE) elected. Ultimately, that did lead to a lot of dead people "all over Iraq." That doesn't mean that Williams set out to kill children. Sometimes consequences are unintended. Try to focus better.

    2. Somerby said it, not me.

    3. I'm typing slowly in the hope that you can follow. Yes, TDH said it, if by "it" is meant the fact that working to help GWB get elected ended up leading to the deaths of Iraqi children. That's just the consequence of GWB's war, a fact clearly evident with hindsight. You claimed this meant imputing intent. People may be reasonably charged with responsibility for the unintended consequences of their actions.

    4. Somerby said this: "Children are dead all over Iraq. In his service to CEO Welch, Brian worked hard toward that end."

      The words "worked hard toward that end" imply intent. An "end" is a goal and working toward a goal means that someone intends to achieve that goal. Thus Somerby imputes intent to Williams. His reference to that end is the dead children immediately preceding the word "end" in his sentence. Somerby said this. It is a direct quote from his post.

      You can try to pin this on my interpretation but it is his sentence, his statement.

      It cannot be unintended consequences when you say someone was working toward a particular end. You would say the opposite, that they were not working toward that end, if the consequences were unintended but happened anyway.

      I don't think Brian Williams was trying to kill children. Maybe Somerby doesn't either, but it IS what he said. That's why I took issue with it. I think Somerby was over the line. Why do you defend him? He should be as accountable for his idiocies as the people he criticizes, in my opinion.

    5. The intent was "service to Welsh", (supporting Bush, demonizing Gore), not the dead children.

      The outcome (end) was the tens of thousands of dead children.

      You're so funny. You misread almost everything written here!

      Surely you are satirizing a clueless internet commenter because the sheer volume your idiotic, crabbed misreadings seems almost impossible.

      And don't forget the half a million dead Iraqi children killed in Iraq before Bush - while Brian Williams was worrying about oral sexcapades with interns! (well, to be fair, they all died before that even started - but he didn't make an issue of all those hundreds of thousands of dead kids that we were responsible for.

    6. Somerby says "In his service to CEO Welch, Brian worked hard toward that end." "In his service" means that the service was the means, not the end. It makes no sense to read this as you suggest. But you are doing very well for a non-native speaker. Hang in there.

    7. No, that's the point. In his service to Welsh (the means), he worked hard to the end - dead kids. But if you read it that way, that Somerby is attributing "the intention to kill children to Brian Williams", we can just agree to disagree. Dumb fuck cunt rag.

    8. This is about what Somerby said. Words have meanings. I am reading what Somerby wrote. If he is careless, that isn't my fault. You cannot rehabilitate his carelessness by pretending he wrote something else. Interesting that someone who likes to insult people using terms that denigrate women would also be such a strong defender of Somerby.

    9. Yes, be my guest if you think Somerby is attributing the intention to kill children to Brian Williams. That would be in keeping wit your track record. Bon dimanche!

    10. Somerby often takes journalists to task for their sloppy, or worse, deliberately misleading, language. His famous example is “21-year-old intern” Monica Lewinsky. Even though it is technically accurate (she was an intern when she and Bill first “did it”, and she was 21 when she started at the White House a few months prior to this), Somerby accuses journalists of portraying her this way, because it presumably made Clinton look somehow more ogre-like.

      And here, as 12:49 says, Somerby does not say anything about unintended consequences. A casual or first time reader wouldn’t understand the supposed distinction, which is not stated, nor even implied. That reader would come away thinking that Willians and Welch deliberately worked toward the end of killing children in Iraq.

      Somerby knows how to use words. He also knows the implication of his statement here is that Welch and Williams wanted this outcome. Even if they wanted Bush elected, which is not known, that doesn’t imply that they wanted dead children in Iraq. 9/11 hadn’t even happened at this point, so war with Iraq was a distant gleam in the Neocons’ eyes.

      Or can one say that The “Others” who actually voted for Bush worked to the end of dead children in Iraq? Strangely, Somerby never charges *those* people with that.

      It isn’t hard to imagine that Somerby really does believe journalists wanted this, his hatred of journalists is so intense.

    11. @2:35 -- I wouldn't call an intern a dumb fuck either. Certainly Clinton didn't. Thank you for sticking up for Monica.

    12. In comedy they say, “If you buy the premise, you buy the bit.” In tort law they say, “If you cause the harm, you pay for the damages.” This blog is dedicated to the proposition that journalistic malpractice leads to dire ends for society — when you practice bad journalism, you bear some responsibility for the inevitable bad results.

      When you speak of “casual” or “first time” readers, you’re really just talking about yourself or readers like yourself, i.e, both clueless and ill disposed to the blogger. You can’t even state your own case clearly. Your write:

      That reader [that is, you] would come away thinking that Willians [sic] and Welch deliberately worked toward the end of killing children in Iraq.

      And, in hindsight, so they did. What you mean to say is

      That reader would come away thinking that Williams and Welch understood that they were deliberately working toward the end of killing children in Iraq.

      But that’s merely an inference based on your obtuse refusal to consider the context of what this blog is all about. This is clear from your complaint that TDH never charges Bush voters for having worked toward the end of dead children in Iraq. But this blog is not about voters. It is about corporatist journalists (or it was before all the horse shit about logic and philosophy).

      You say that it isn’t hard to imagine that TDH really does believe that journalists set out wanting dead children. True enough, but it isn’t hard to imagine things when you can’t read for comprehension.

    13. What a weird defense of Bob. The stance that Bob wrote a shitty comment is not indefensible. Bob uses media criticism as a tool to attack "liberals", it happened a few years back.

    14. After Albright's (the Clintons' own Bolton) declaration that the 500,000 child deaths in Iraq caused by their Sanctions Regime were "worth it," Absolutely nobody supporting the even-worse war being prepared by that "Sanctions Regime" is not guilty of mass murder. Nobody. Not the Clintons, not Brian Williams, not any of the theatrically mourned Bushes, not Joe Biden, not John Kerry. Not anybody.

  5. Its nice that in a year where Bob promised to do a hit piece on Mueller that somehow never came, Bob has found a new hero. The
    heart of Al's schtick is that he is a Democrat who none the less is
    against the criminalization of Politics. Trouble is, there seems to be
    a lot more money preaching that line at Fox than anywhere else, as
    we didn't hear much out of him during, say, the endless Benghazi
    hearings, which were the ultimate in at least attempting to
    criminalize not just politics, but holding an office. It seems distressing likely that Bob's own
    repositioning (for a few years he has been oddly silent about the
    throwing of Bill Clinton under the bus, a story where he really
    could berate the lies and gutlessness of the left) may be tied to
    the assistance of some "libertarian" sugar daddy.
    In any event, perhaps some members of Nicole Simpson's
    family could be added to Bob's dream panel, as Al insists to this
    day that O.J. was railroaded, just as he now says of Trump.

    Conspiracy to aid foreign governments in interfering with
    our Elections. Bribery. Violations of Campaign Finance Law.
    Obstruction of justice. These are the crimes, and others, we
    often hear mentioned on MSNBC. As if Bob didn't know.
    Money laundering for people who are the absolute scum of
    the earth, as if Bob cared.

    1. Greg -- there's a key difference between publicizing information already gathered illegally by the Russians vs. colluding with the Russians in advance to help or encourage them in their hacking. Media have often reported information released illegally by some whistle-blower. That's not illegal.

    2. *** Public Service Announcement ***

      DAinCA is a moral and intellectual idiot. You may safely ignore anything he posts.

      It is against the law for a campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government. This includes money (like a $500 check) or an in-kind donation (like $500 worth of printer cartridges). If opposition research is a routine expense for your campaign, then having the Russians provide you with the results of their opposition research is prohibited. This is an area of the law with little precedent, so it’s hard to say definitively whether a court will apply campaign finance law to Trump’s treasonous activities, but that decision won’t hinge on when the Russians decided to help Trump or whether the media has reported on whistleblowers.

    3. I can only be reassured by the fact that your argument comes down to "no President has come close to behaving in this odious fashion so it's unclear what to do." Yeah we get it, but it's possible we will figure out something beyond Bob's "he has mental problems and the Press won't tell us!!" Alas, Bob must be a little crazy at this point, because even if you find MSNBC's
      infotainment style cheesy, and it's hard not to, they have gotten
      the story right, not that Bob will ever admit it.

    4. If I could share an observation: the dembots here seem truly invested in lib-zombie bullshit talking points. I guess they feel that lib-zombie bullshit talking points are The Word of God.

      Consequently, the dembots appear genuinely troubled and infuriated when zombie-cult bullshit talking points are challenged by 'infidels' (normal people).

      Oh well, it's not surprising, I suppose: sorosianism is extremely totalitarian by nature...

    5. Good try, deadrat, but that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the law.

    6. David, you are aware that deadrat is an attorney, right?

    7. Are you assuming that since every lawyer is a rat, every dead rat has to be a lawyer, dembot?

    8. Anonymous @12:51,

      Thanks, but I’m not an attorney. I only play one in cyberspace. But you don’t have to be an attorney to understand the law; you just have to do your homework.

      There’s no point in engaging DAinCA. Some here rage against him for lying, but he’s a moral idiot, without an ethical compass, and we don’t hold idiots to task for their disability. Some here try to correct him for spouting right-wing falsehoods, but he’s also an intellectual idiot, without means to think critically, and we don’t hold idiots to task for their inability to understand things.

      I occasionally comment on issues of law because that interests me. It’s illegal for foreigners to intervene in US elections. But this is a tricky area since even non-citizens have first amendment rights. So the law talks about material aid, i.e., money or things of value. Nobody contemplated that a candidate would conspire with a hostile foreign government to win an election, and if they had, I doubt they would have thought that 40% of the electorate would have no problem with that. But that’s where we are.

      Does soliciting or accepting material aid from the Russian government in the form of oppo research violate campaign finance laws? Hard to say; that’s for the courts to decide. What we can be sure of is that contrary to DAinCA’s claims, it will be immaterial when the information was gathered or whether it was legal for news outlets to report on whistle blowers.

      On a related issue, do hush payments to sex partners constitute campaign expenses? Also not a slam dunk, even though Michael Cohen in his guilty plea, has agreed with the prosecutors that the payments were illegal. The initial problem for the Trumpers was merely that the payments went unreported. But that’s only a problem for the legal fiction “the campaign,” which would be on the hook for FEC fines for the failure to report. Far more serious is lying to the authorities about the payments or conspiring to make them. Now we’re talking individual criminal liability.

    9. That's right, in the lib-zombie death-cult lawyers concoct talking points, and lowly cheap dembots endlessly repeat them. That's how it's done.

  6. "He aimed some pleasing snark at The Others"

    But Bob, Prof Dershowitz is not one of those. He's a liberal, he's a democrat, he's part of the liberal elite.

    The Others, as I understood your terminology, are the unwashed blue-collar masses, the deplorables.

    Or, have "The Others" been upgraded include everyone who's not zombie now?

    1. "The Others, as I understood your terminology, are the unwashed blue-collar masses, the deplorables. "
      I know them. They're the ones who Republicans are trying to nullify the votes of in WI, MI, and NC (while being cheered on lustily by the Mao's of the world).

    2. And, of course, it was the right who upgraded the "deplorables" long ago with snarky sarcasm, Mrs. Clinton was address a very specific group of racist nationalists Trump was lending legitimacy to. Just because Mao is one does not mean She was talking about everybody.

    3. A very specific group? She said it was "half" of Trump supporters. Tens of millions of Americans. It lost her the election and rightly so, she was a terrible candidate. Plus she was responsible for so many deaths after leaving North Africa in a shambles. "Very specific group" haha. Your another writing satire here?

    4. Noticeably, none of the dembots (1:59 PM or 6:57 AM) dispute the central point: that Prof Dershowitz, being a liberal and a democrat, is not one of "The Others" (Bob's term).

      I'm glad that we can all agree on something, dear dembots.

    5. "half:
      Hillary Clinton is the champion of those who wear rose-colored glasses.

  7. The gap between black, white (and Asian) students is NOT a problem. The fact that a large number of students are performing years below grade level IS a problem. It would also be a problem if the same number of students of some other ethnicity were years behind grade level.

    If may seem that my construction is effectively the same as complaining about the racial gap. Either way, we're mostly looking for ways to improve the education of blacks students. Here's the difference. Under my construction, its a good thing to provide advanced education for students who are well above grade level. Under the "racial gap" construction, helping white and Asian students reach even higher achievement is bad, because it widens the gap.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Dershowitz is not a liberal, he was a regular attendee of Jeffrey Epstein's parties, along with Trump. Parties that celebrated youthfulness in an odd manner. Trump also donated to Clinton.

    1. Of course he is a liberal, dembot. And he's one of the most dedicated liberals. Jeffrey Epstein is also a liberal, a philanthrope and all that. So is Woody Allen.

      Lib-zombie cult celebs are soooo virtuous, that they consider their child-fucking to be beneficial for the children being fucked, dembot. That's actually typical for many other cults too...

    2. Go easy on Mao, his High School years were tough, and
      he is said to be traumatized by being the one member of
      Dennis Hastert's wrestling squad who not only did not
      complain, but bore a lot of false witness against the
      students who came forward.

    3. You dembots have weirdest fantasies, I must say.

    4. 6;46,
      If the guy who says Dershowitz is a dembot, I whole-heartedly agree.

  9. Hmm.... when Speaker of the House and Republican Child Molester Denny talked economics, it must have really gotten you off.

    1. Are you aware that you sound like a weirdo, dembot?

      If that's what you want, it's fine with me; I just hope it won't cause problems with your dembot management, my dear.

    2. 11;33,
      Give the dembot a break. at least he's not making it easier for the Establishment to pollute our land, air, and water for profit.

      BTW, will one of David in Cal's grandchildren please hurry up and die from an asthma attack, so we can all cheer along corporate freedom.

    3. Ah, @3:24, you have been mis-educated. Although some corporations contribute to pollution, corporations are invaluable. Corporations have made us wealthy and healthy. Food, clothing, shelter, medicines, vaccines, energy, transportation, electronics, exercise equipment, and just about every other valuable commodity comes from corporations. One can see the value of corporations from the recent history of Venezuela. It was a prosperous country until Socialism undermined the corporations. As a result, people are literally starving to death. Millions have fled.
      E.g., see Venezuelans are starving, but the country still sends crude to Cuba

      Or, consider pollution. In the Iron Curtain countries pollution was much worse than in the United States. Corporations have helped us to maintain cleaner water and air.

    4. David,
      In the meantime, hug your collateral damage.

    5. Mao, do you think your preschool "Dembot" stuff sound effective, as your four hundred pound ass sits their in the too fat too walk scooter with Fox turned up loud 24/7?
      Dummy, it is you who daily makes an ass of yourself with your
      weird huge bottom checking the computer every five
      minutes to make sure sure Bob hasn't said something
      you can blurt "Dembots" about in the comment section.
      Nobody here does not think your are weirdo and fruitcake.
      You really need to find a ten story rooftop and see
      if you can get the scooter up there.....

    6. I was worried about you, dembot. That you sound like a weirdo, and you'd have problems with your dembot management.

      But now I really feel your hatred. And it hurts.

      Are you saying all these horrible, hurtful things to me just because I'm a black lesbian?

      You should be ashamed, dear dembot. I don't know how you can live with yourself.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. This nicely illustrates Bob's problem, as Mao predictably sinks to
      race baiting/ homophobia. It is Fox News like outlets who have produced hatful shut-ins like Mao, who most likely is NOT being
      paid by Russians or Right Wingers (too obvious are his shenanigans) but rather has ginned up some workers comp claim so he can live off the taxpayer and sit in the fat chair by the computer all day. Look at his daily posting: no real point of view, certainly nothing to add to the conversation, it's highly doubtful he can even begin to understand the issues of the day. But he the soul killing nonsense of Fox to sort of guide him. And Bob would have the liberal somehow responsible for Fox. That's nuts. And as the chair is slowly pulled out from under Trump, he may go crazy.

    9. Yawn. Your mindor upside of being a weirdo perv, dembot, is too well compensated by your being mind-numbingly boring.

      ...and that's enough for you, dembot. Your cravings for my attention are gonna go unsatisfied for a while now.

    10. Mao makes a good point here that should be heeded, he is only here for the attention, stop responding to him and he will seek attention elsewhere.

  10. Here’s a thought experiment. How hard would it have been for Somerby to say: “Children are dead all over Iraq. In his service to CEO Welch, Brian helped to enable this unfortunate consequence of Bush’s election.”

    1. Depends how much wine you've been drinking.

    2. It's sad because his point about Welch is well taken, he has just taken to making it in a way so lazy as to be self defeating.

  11. Dershowitz, Epstein, and Donald are both all pals and not at all liberals - even when Donald contributed to Clinton. They all cavorted at the same parties, with the same underage girls.

    1. Of course they are. Together with Epstein's best pal Bubba The Demigod.

    2. Bubba a Demigod? Hardly.
      Unlike President Donald J. Trump, Clinton didn't even put a sexual predator on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Establishment Elites.

    3. Mao is a genuine and sincere populist, a true blue man of the working class, who always seems to come down on the side of the shadowy right wing billionaire movement conservatives like Richard Mellon Scaife and the Koch brothers.

      Tis a puzzle it is.

    4. Yeah, dembot. Without a doubt, every sincere populist should be on the side of sweet-talking globalist-neolib-neocon goebbelsian-sorossian establishment whores.

  12. Leave Marie Antoinette alone! She had absolutely no power ever. The absolute power belonged to King Louis XVI as to his father and grandfather, and they asserted it wherever they could. It was *his* court, and its denizens despised her as "L'Autrichienne." (the austrian bitch) The only court permitted to her was her refuge at Le Petit Trianon, and it was as socially egalitarian (not very, of course) as she could manage. When dragged before the murderous 'Revolutionary Tribunal" of Robespierre and Fouquier-Tinville there was an "empty dossier"-no evidence of any participation in the real crimes for which Louis XVI merited execution. Instead the prosecutors slandered her as a "pedophile" who had committed incest with her seven-year-old son in the very prison where they were confined. Marie surely made mistakes--like enouraging her King in his refusal to abdicate, and trying to flee the death-trap of the Tuileries. But that is all, and quite understandable. Like every other woman guillotined or driven into exile she was a martyr to "Revolutionary" phallocracy.

    1. Not quite every one. Rightly or wrongly, Charlotte Cordray did kill Marat.


  13. Hello all my viewers My from m maria from USA! I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the euro million lottery. I am a man who believe that one day I will win the lottery.finally my dreams came through when I email Dr clement.and tell him I need the lottery numbers.I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I mean the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell,so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 20,000 million Dollar.Dr. clement truly you are the best,with these great Dr you can win millions of money through lottery.I am so very happy to meet these great man now, I will be forever be grateful to you dr. Email him for your own winning lottery numbers or you can call him for your own help to win big money today whatsap+2347052758952.from maria Banks post (USA)thanks for reading.
    Dr. clement also explain to me he can cure all kind of infection disease with herbal medicine
    {5} HPV
    {6} ALS
    {9}if you have problem HighCourt